Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3709
sitting of Parliament lifts. We were asking him why he did not put in a really simple
clause that clarifies what, apparently, the Government members claim—that they do not
expect the entitlement to go. Let us just put that in the bill to clarify it. Mr Brownlee
says that that part does not come in until November 2010 anyway, and by then we will
have passed the other legislation. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House,
given his control of the House this week I am not entirely convinced that those other
pieces of legislation can be expected to be passed by November 2010. I think it is a
great leap of faith for the women who work for the Auckland City Council to say:
“That’s all right. Mr Brownlee is so much in control of the House that this will not be a
problem and the legislation fixing it up will be passed.”
The next very important amendment Labour put up was to ensure Māori
representation on the transition agency. Maybe, since the Māori Party opposed it, we
could call this bill the “Iwi Versus Kiwi Bill” because we are seeing the same old
National Party. I just want to point out to my colleagues in the Māori Party and the
Green Party that Labour did try to make that part stand alone. We tried to make that part
for Māori representation stand on its own without the other representation for Pacific
and Asian people, but the Clerk told us we could not do it and that the only way we
could get it up was to combine it. I want to say, because we are criticised by Māori
Party colleagues for putting the others in with Māori, that we tried.
At least Labour did try, because I did not see other amendments on the Table from
parties that were accusing us of not doing enough for Māori representation; only Labour
put up amendments on the Table to ensure Māori representation. I think it is important
that that goes on the record.
Labour also put up an amendment to make sure that public assets could not be sold
by this transition agency. National opposed that, so let us call the bill the “Sell the
Family Silver Bill”. One of the assets we are talking about is Auckland Airport. Do
members remember what the National Party said about Auckland Airport when Labour
stepped in to ensure that it stayed in New Zealand hands? National members were up in
arms, and then they sit here in this Chamber and expect us to believe that they care
about the public retention of assets. The situation we find ourselves in is absolutely
incredible. It is rotten, rotten legislation by a rotten-to-the-core Government that is
showing its true colours.
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now
put.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): We are 5 minutes into the debate—
maybe 10—and National members are already trying to shut it down. We should call
this bill the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill” because this bill gives
Rodney Hide ultimate and total control of Auckland. It establishes a transition agency
whose members he can hand-pick. The bill says that that transition agency has to have
all of its expenditure approved by the Minister, and it gives that transition agency the
ultimate control over all the decision making of all the democratically elected existing
authorities in Auckland. It hands ultimate and total control to the ACT Party and to
people like Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas. Rodney Hide can now appoint whomever
he likes to this transition agency. That is why we should call this the “Rodney Hide
(Total Control of Auckland) Bill”. He could appoint, if he so chose, Roger Douglas and
Richard Prebble to this agency, because even though Roger Douglas is a member of the
House, we know that National members do not have any problem with double-dipping.
They do not have any problem with double-dipping; they do not have any problem with
anyone being involved in local government politics at the same time as being in this
House.